A revolution in thought

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Erimir, I've heard this same refrain over and over, and it's really getting old. An observation can be evidence of truth, and it can be without flaw. Why do you think he harped on this in the introduction? He knew what he was up against.

You may reason that many people have been positive
that they were right but it turned out they were wrong, so couldn’t
I also be positive and wrong? There is a fallacious standard hidden
in this reasoning. Because others were positive and wrong, I could
be wrong because I am positive. The first astronomer who
observed the mathematical laws inherent in the solar system that
enabled him to predict an eclipse was positive and right, as well as
the space scientist who foretold that one day man would land on
the moon. Edison when he first discovered the electric bulb was
positive and right. Einstein when he revealed the potential of
atomic energy was positive and right — and so were many other
scientists — but they proved that they were right with an
undeniable demonstration, which is what I am doing. If my
demonstration doesn’t prove me right, then and then only am I
wrong. There is quite a difference between being positive or
dogmatic over knowledge that is questionable and being positive
over something that is undeniable such as two plus two equals
four.

Peacegirl, you are correct "[a]n observation can be evidence of truth, and it can be without flaw". However it doesn't count as evidence unless and until it is demonstrated that it is accurate (i.e. without flaw). Neither you or Lessans' has managed to demonstrate that any of his observations are without flaw. Some of them may be accurate, but this has yet to be demonstrated. Lessans' himself admits that "[i]f my demonstration doesn’t prove me right, then and then only am I wrong". Since his demonstration (such as it is) fails to prove him right then, by his own admission, he is wrong. As it now stands none of his "astute" observations have been demonstrated to be correct, and some (eg. his observations regarding the operation of sight) have been conclusively demonstrated to be incorrect.

Furthermore, his reasoning is often in error. One such glaring error is present in the quote you provided above. To whit, "[y]ou may reason that many people have been positive that they were right but it turned out they were wrong, so couldn’t I also be positive and wrong? There is a fallacious standard hidden in this reasoning. Because others were positive and wrong, I could be wrong because I am positive". If the argument that he is countering were that he is wrong because he is positive, then he would be correct that this is a fallacious (even ludicrous) assertion. That, however, is not what "many people have been positive that they were right but it turned out they were wrong" means. What it means is that it is possible to be positive and wrong. Therefore it is possible for him to be wrong even though he is positive about his claims. In other words, just because he is positive does not mean he is right. This is a pretty unexceptionable statement. For some unaccountable reason you continue to think that because he was positive about his observations and his claims they must, therefore, be true.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by SharonDee

God, finally someone made a joke about this!

What do you mean finally, do I have to label all my posts with "Joke Alert !", Or is everyone reading this thread a blond? Well there is no way in hell that I'm explaining all my posts that many times.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Seraph

Indeed, but once a contradictory observation has been made, the hypothesis becomes untenable.
.

But a contradictory observation would hurt peacegirl's campaign to sell books, and since you can't be blamed, you will not make those observations, therefore they don't exist.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Okay, let's say that his observations are correct but he didn't have a chance to back them up with the evidence that you find necessary to call proof. So does this mean he was wrong? No. Call it an assertion. Call it a hypothesis, I don't care. I suggest is when I'm no longer here, continue reading with the possibility he could be right. If he is, and the tests come out in his favor, you will be way ahead of the game.

Let's all ignore the gaping holes in Lessans' work and pretend that he actually had something important to say and that if everyone in the world would just go along with this fantasy there would an end to all evil. Let's do this because peacegirl has way to much emotional investment in this fantasy being true to ever be willing to recognize the intellectual bankruptcy of Lessans' work and because it hurts her feelings when people are critical of that work.

[Hermit]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Where did this observation you provided destroy the knowledge my father presented?

Your dad asserted that:

In order to hurt another, man must be able to derive some satisfaction from this, which means that he was previously hurt and is justified to retaliate, or else he knows, absolutely and positively, that he would be blamed by the person he hurt and others if they knew.

With this observation I have demonstrated that his claim is false by observing how "evil" can be done even if none of the necessary conditions stipulated by your dad for its possibility of it happening are present. It is clear that I killed an innocent person I never met before (no revenge factor there), that I was acting toward attaining the greatest possible satisfaction, and that I had no feeling of being blameworthy for the killing. On a broader level I did not even feel hurt for belonging to the disadvantaged and underprivileged strata of society because that would imply that others were out to hurt me. They can't be, because that in turn would imply free will, and I know there is no such thing. So, no fear of being blamed, no blaming others, no revenge, no hurt was involved in the killing of a stranger. Just a desire to maximise my satisfaction.

[erimir]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Erimir, I've heard this same refrain over and over, and it's really getting old. An observation can be evidence of truth, and it can be without flaw. Why do you think he harped on this in the introduction? He knew what he was up against.

What does your response have to do with what I said?

I have observed that in practically every case, when someone criticizes or disagrees with your dad, you suggest that they haven't understood the book, or they're close-minded or that they didn't read the relevant sections.

You don't provide new arguments, you don't provide evidence, you don't refute the evidence that others have put forth (about sight, or whatever). You just say that they don't understand or don't want to. Or even more pathetically, you say that while that might be, say, the scientific model, it's still possible that your dad is right.

That's dogmatic behavior. You are unwilling to reconsider these ideas, you are convinced 100% that they are true, and nothing that anyone says here is going to convince you otherwise.

It is you who is close-minded.

[DaveT]

By switching off the radio when Billy Joel comes on, are we blaming him for starting the fire?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Erimir, I've heard this same refrain over and over, and it's really getting old. An observation can be evidence of truth, and it can be without flaw. Why do you think he harped on this in the introduction? He knew what he was up against.

You may reason that many people have been positive
that they were right but it turned out they were wrong, so couldn’t
I also be positive and wrong? There is a fallacious standard hidden
in this reasoning. Because others were positive and wrong, I could
be wrong because I am positive. The first astronomer who
observed the mathematical laws inherent in the solar system that
enabled him to predict an eclipse was positive and right, as well as
the space scientist who foretold that one day man would land on
the moon. Edison when he first discovered the electric bulb was
positive and right. Einstein when he revealed the potential of
atomic energy was positive and right — and so were many other
scientists — but they proved that they were right with an
undeniable demonstration, which is what I am doing. If my
demonstration doesn’t prove me right, then and then only am I
wrong. There is quite a difference between being positive or
dogmatic over knowledge that is questionable and being positive
over something that is undeniable such as two plus two equals
four.

Originally Posted by erimir

Peacegirl, you are correct "[a]n observation can be evidence of truth, and it can be without flaw". However it doesn't count as evidence unless and until it is demonstrated that it is accurate (i.e. without flaw). Neither you or Lessans' has managed to demonstrate that any of his observations are without flaw. Some of them may be accurate, but this has yet to be demonstrated. Lessans' himself admits that "[i]f my demonstration doesn’t prove me right, then and then only am I wrong". Since his demonstration (such as it is) fails to prove him right then, by his own admission, he is wrong. As it now stands none of his "astute" observations have been demonstrated to be correct, and some (eg. his observations regarding the operation of sight) have been conclusively demonstrated to be incorrect.

No Erimir, his observations, by his own admission, do not prove wrong. He has demonstrated, through astute observation and description, that what is going on with the eyes are correct. He has also shown, through astute observation that conscience holds people accountable, when it does not have a justification for striking a first blow.

Originally Posted by ermimir

Furthermore, his reasoning is often in error. One such glaring error is present in the quote you provided above. To whit, "[y]ou may reason that many people have been positive that they were right but it turned out they were wrong, so couldn’t I also be positive and wrong? There is a fallacious standard hidden in this reasoning. Because others were positive and wrong, I could be wrong because I am positive". If the argument that he is countering were that he is wrong because he is positive, then he would be correct that this is a fallacious (even ludicrous) assertion. That, however, is not what "many people have been positive that they were right but it turned out they were wrong" means. What it means is that it is possible to be positive and wrong.

I think a lot of people resent someone making such big claims. Because he believed [he knew] he was right, people want to prove he is wrong, or at least make him consider the possibility that the structure he has presented is shaky. However you want to state it, people don't like when someone says they are that positive about something. I will repeat: That does not mean a person could never be positive and wrong. Of course a person can be positive and wrong, but he wasn't. No one has yet to prove this man wrong, even if they want more evidence.

Originally Posted by erimir

Therefore it is possible for him to be wrong even though he is positive about his claims. In other words, just because he is positive does not mean he is right. This is a pretty unexceptionable statement. For some unaccountable reason you continue to think that because he was positive about his observations and his claims they must, therefore, be true.

No, I never said that just because he said he was positive about his observations, that I took for granted they must be true. I have analyzed his work backwards and forwards, and I know they work. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and no one has yet to show me where there is a flaw, or where the pudding hasn't yet been eaten. You need to remember that we are compelled to choose what gives us greater satisfaction, and when we get less satisfaction from hurting others than not, the problem of evil will be solved. As he stated:

Please remember that any truth revealed in
a mathematical manner does not require your approval for its
validity, although it does necessitate your understanding for
recognition and development.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Seraph

Your dad asserted that:

In order to hurt another, man must be able to derive some satisfaction from this, which means that he was previously hurt and is justified to retaliate, or else he knows, absolutely and positively, that he would be blamed by the person he hurt and others if they knew.

With this observation I have demonstrated that his claim is false by observing how "evil" can be done even if none of the necessary conditions stipulated by your dad for its possibility of it happening are present. It is clear that I killed an innocent person I never met before (no revenge factor there), that I was acting toward attaining the greatest possible satisfaction, and that I had no feeling of being blameworthy for the killing. On a broader level I did not even feel hurt for belonging to the disadvantaged and underprivileged strata of society because that would imply that others were out to hurt me. They can't be, because that in turn would imply free will, and I know there is no such thing. So, no fear of being blamed, no blaming others, no revenge, no hurt was involved in the killing of a stranger. Just a desire to maximise my satisfaction.

I understand what you were trying to prove, but it's incorrect. First of all, there will be no disadvantaged or underprivileged strata of society in the new world. That in itself is a hurt, and could be used as a justification to steal at another person's expense. But even if that was not your particular situation, and you were someone who had all the necessaries of life, but just wanted what someone else had, this would not be a happy day for your conscience. Your conscience would never permit it. But in order for these principles to work you would have had to know that no one in the world would ever blame you for this hurt, including the person himself who is about to be killed and robbed by you. There is absolutely no way this example proves anything.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Kael

I have observed that many of Lessans' claims are false. This observation constitutes undeniable, scientific, and mathematical proof that his book is not worth the paper it would require to be printed. While perhaps not the world-changing, evil-eliminating revelation he claimed to have had, it is still relevant to at least one person here, who would be well advised to stop wasting her life and resources promoting a work with no basis in any observable reality outside the mind and imagination of its author.

Kael, you are 100% wrong in your rush to judgment. I am not wasting my life; I am using it for something very worthwhile. And, by the way, it's not my only purpose in life. This book has helped me beyond words. If you don't want to read it and you want to accept hook, line, and sinker, the ridiculous refutations that have not disproved his claims by any stretch of the imagination, then by all means, leave this thread and never look back. P.S. I want to add that you are trying to put me into the mold of a fundamentalist, and until you get that I am so far removed from being a fundamentalist that it isn't even funny, you will never be able to understand the validity of this discovery because you will be too rash to carefully consider his observations, and it will be a done deal. So sad.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's a total joke.

Now you've got it.

[peacegirl]

I know what everyone is thinking. I am a very recalcitrant individual who is faith based and cannot admit she is wrong. I get it. But the joke is on all of you. Unfortunately, your ignorance will affect others even if it's to delay this new world. It won't stop it no matter what your grudges or refutations are.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Now you've got it.

David, our conversation is over. Seriously, you are one close minded guy and my time is truly limited. I wish you the best. I have nothing against you.

[Hermit]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I understand... [snip]

Thanks, peacegirl. You finally cured me of my optimism that with enough discussion the scales will eventually fall from your eyes, and you will see your dad's work for what it is. Bye bye.

[davidm]

Deleted double post

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

David, our conversation is over. Seriously, you are one close minded guy ...

Hey, you can't blame me for that!

[The Lone Ranger]

Out of curiosity, let's do a thought experiment.

Speaking purely hypothetically, what evidence -- if it existed, and if that fact were demonstrated to you -- would you consider as disproving Lessans' hypothesis? Remember, we're talking purely hypothetical here.

[DaveT]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No Erimir, his observations, by his own admission, do not prove wrong.

Well, when a man is brave enough to actually admit that he wasn't wrong, surely we need no more proof that everything they have been saying is completely, utterly, absolutely, totally, and entirely correct.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I know what everyone is thinking. I am a very recalcitrant individual who is faith based and cannot admit she is wrong. I get it. But the joke is on all of you. Unfortunately, your ignorance will affect others even if it's to delay this new world. It won't stop it no matter what your grudges or refutations are.

We're to blame for delaying the new world.

Oh, wait! I thought no one was to blame for anything!

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Please remember that any truth revealed in
a mathematical manner does not require your approval for its
validity, although it does necessitate your understanding for
recognition and development.

Oh, wait, I thought you said his arguments were inductive; now they are back to being a mathematical proof!

What is the proof, peacegirl? Shows us the equations!

[Doctor X]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Every crow I've ever seen was black. I've seen lots of crows. Therefore all crows are black. Q.E.D.

Your crows just don't understand

--J.D.

[Doctor X]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm really not frustrated, . . .

Of course you are.

Davidm did not win.

Of course he did.

Plucking sentences out of context

They were not out of context

If you call that critical thinking, you all deserve each other.

Indeed, critical thinkers rather do flock together. This is why you remain singular in this thread due to your willful ignorance.

--J.D.

[Doctor X]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I know what everyone is thinking. I am a very recalcitrant individual who is faith based and cannot admit she is wrong.

No.

We now know this.

Much like a neutered dog you do, indeed, "not get it."

--J.D.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Out of curiosity, let's do a thought experiment.

Speaking purely hypothetically, what evidence -- if it existed, and if that fact were demonstrated to you -- would you consider as disproving Lessans' hypothesis? Remember, we're talking purely hypothetical here.

If there was evidence that:

1. man did not move in the direction of greater satisfaction (which is why his will is not free).

2. conscience would allow a person to strike a first blow even though every bit of justification has been removed.

3. an environment that removed every bit of advance judgment, blame, and punishment (including all authority and control) would not compel people to move in different direction for greater satisfaction.

4. being compelled, of one's own free will, is a contradiction.

5. people could still rationalize and lie to themselves in order to get what they want in a world of no blame.

6. people would become less responsible in this type of environment.

7. without the advance justification which allowed him to risk hurting others, the price of this hurt would still be within his purchasing power.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

I laughed until my guts ached at his chapters on dating and marriage and Mom preparing dinner.

I just can't get out of my mind the image of scantily clad "goils" hanging out in bars, and then they start necking with the first dude who says "hi." According to the author, that means they are married! Then they live happily ever after, sez the author, and pop out some kids. Then mom has to put some clothes on -- for the love of Christ, Mom, what do you think this is, some kind of brothel? -- and get into that fucking kitchen and start cooking the spaghetti and meatballs!

I am so not invested in this thread anymore (I have no illusions that people are going to read the book), but I just want people to see how David has done this author wrong. Here is where he plucked the word 'goils' from. Next post I'll show you where he got spaghetti and meatballs, meeting at a bar (which was actually my wording), and scantily clad clothing from.

Another difficult problem confronting parents in our present
world is how to distribute toys without causing envy. For example,
one child may see what another child has and before long he wants
the same thing. A mother asked, “How is it possible not to blame
a child who grabs a toy from another? Shouldn’t the child be
reprimanded?”

Absolutely not, because you are then
blaming the child for the fact that his desire has been aroused to
want something that another child has. Let me clarify this. If you
placed on the dinner table a pitcher of lemonade and a pitcher of
milk, one child may prefer the former while the second selects the
latter, but both were given an equal opportunity to satisfy their
desire for either one, which does not in any way blame their desire.
Could you possibly put on the table enough milk for one child and
enough lemonade for two?

Wouldn’t this obviously blame the
desire of one child should both desire the milk? ‘Mommy, Johnny
got a glass of milk and I want some too.’ Isn’t this just plain
common sense, which we refer to as fairness? Children are very
perceptive when it comes to noticing the slightest shade of
discrimination, which parents are well aware of, and will resent
their parents for taking something away from them which is what
they do when they are not equitable. How many times have you
heard a child say, ‘This isn’t fair because you gave him more than
me?’ The truth of the matter is that it isn’t fair if it blames another
child’s desire for wanting the same thing. Any type of
discrimination, especially where young children are concerned, is
a hurt. Let me show you the unconscious discrimination that
actually goes on where toys are concerned.


One father could not understand why his fraternal twins, a boy
and girl, were not satisfied, he with his toy soldier and she with her
doll. Very young children often want what others have only
because they see these differences and don’t understand why they
can’t have the same thing. Soon they begin crying which may then
develop into a full-blown tantrum. If you give a little boy a toy
soldier and a girl a doll, what is this but an encouragement for
them to quarrel? In reality, aren’t you discriminating if you give
a little boy a toy soldier and a little girl a doll? Why shouldn’t the
boy want to play with the doll and the girl with the soldier, and
what if both should desire the doll at the same time, what then?
All this can be prevented by realizing that every child must be
given an equal opportunity to be happy, which is denied when
parents set up fallacious standards of what is for a girl and what is
for a boy. Let’s observe the following dialogue.

“Justin, this doll belongs to Suzie; dolls are for little girls, not
for boys,” says the father.

“But I wanna play widda dolly.”

“Suzie, you’re older than Justin, so you be a big girl (this
blames him for not being big about it) and let Justin play with your
doll just for a little while and you play with his soldier.”

“No! Dolly mine; you get for Suzie, and you said dollies are
for goils, Daddy, and Justin is a boy, not a goil.”

So what’s the solution? If it is a soldier you wish to give a boy,
you must also give the same exact soldier to the girl; and if it is a
doll you wish to give to the girl, you will give the same exact doll
to the boy. When they discover that each has the same toy there
can be no possessiveness, no jealousy, no envy, and what is much
more important, no fighting to disturb your evenings. This is more
for the benefit of the parents than anything else. Wouldn’t it be
wonderful to get rid of all these things which cause such a
disturbance and make your living so much less enjoyable? Are you
given a choice? But, mind you, it is demonstrated that these things
will take leave not because they are worse for the children but
because they are definitely a source of dissatisfaction and
unhappiness for the parents.